________________
। स्व: मोहनलाल बाठिया स्मृति ग्रन्थ
and then, gāthas from pūrvas, possibly from traditional memory, are quoted even by late commentaries. There is a similar tradition of the digambaras about the gradual loss the Anga knowledge. There is sufficient evidence to indicate that the sacred texts were studied in monastic seminaries and handed down from teacher to pupil often in mutual isolation in distant parts of the country. Due to lapse of memory, lack of continuity of study, obscurity of technical details and passing away of outstanding custodians of scriptural knowledge etc, some or other branches of study must have fallen into oblivion in some or other branches of study must have fallen into oblivion in some seminary or the other. Any specialised branch elaborately preserved in one seminary, it is quite likely, gradually came to disowned by others on account of certain differences in dogmas grown in the mean time. That is how, in all probability, the Digambaras came to disown the Angas and the Drstivada was considered as lost by the Svetāmbaras. Portions of the Drştivada, it has been lately shown by Dr. Hiralal, lie at the basis of the Prakrit-Samsirot commentaries and Kaşayaprabhsta which with huge PrakritSanskrit commentaries have been brought to light. The limited studies that have been carried on do indicate that both of them (Digambaras and Svetāmbaras) had a common literature once, and even today common matter expressed in almost identical terms, can be detected in the early literature of both. A full estimate of early Jaina literature and the ideology embodied therein is possible only by studying comparatively the older works preserved by both sections of the Jainas.
The canon comprises works of different origin and age, and naturally it is difficult to estimate its literary character. The redaction has brought together distinctly separate parts
Jain Education International 2010_03
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
